Beware Of 'Good Government' Reformers

The "good government" folks are always at it in Virginia. They won't be content until the commonwealth resembles New York and California.

There are distinctive features of Virginia government that should be the envy of other states. But to the "good government" reformers, these features are defects to be eliminated, particularly the constitutional limits on gubernatorial succession and on the length of legislative sessions. In Virginia, a governor cannot serve consecutive terms, and annual legislative sessions are brief.

Reformers argue that Virginia is out of step with the rest of the country and needs to allow a governor to succeed himself as governors can in New York, California and other states. That Virginia stands alone has never been a sufficient justification to change the way the commonwealth does business. To the contrary, it may mean that Virginia is the only state doing it right.

There is an admitted bias underlying the prohibition on consecutive gubernatorial terms. Virginians have traditionally favored limited government, and this term limitation is calculated to preserve that tradition. What the reformers really want is expansive new state programs. The constitutional restriction on consecutive terms for a governor makes enactment of such ambitious programs more difficult.

There is sound justification for preserving the no-succession restriction. An incumbent governor has an inordinate advantage over a challenger and is tempted to abuse the powers of the office in campaigning for re-election. Virginians need only look at the 1998 gubernatorial election campaign in Maryland to see a dramatic example. The incumbent in that race shamelessly dispensed favors and government largesse to bolster his odds of winning re-election.

A new government program should be enacted on its own merits. There is already too much personalizing in government. It is corrosive to encourage governors to establish new programs as their legacies. We don't need additional pressures to expand the scope and intrusive impact of government.

The same limited-government bias undergirds the constitutional limit on the length of General Assembly sessions. There is less opportunity for mischief in a short session. In this regard, Virginians can look to another neighbor, North Carolina, to see what long legislative sessions produce.

The problem in Virginia is not that legislators have too little time. They can accomplish what is necessary in a short session by setting priorities early in each session.

There is an established pattern to legislative behavior. Whatever the body, it will tend to defer tough decisions, treat important and insignificant proposals alike and divorce political burden from political benefit. The constitutional restriction on the length of legislative sessions is only one way to counter these tendencies. It is worth preserving.

Twenty-five years ago, leading legislators proposed that the General Assembly manage its sessions better by recessing for at least a week after all legislation, including the proposed state budget, has been introduced. This would allow the mass of bills and resolutions to be analyzed, rational priorities set and an opportunity for all members to examine the proposed budget. Although each house has approved the recess proposal at least once, it has never been adopted. It continues to make sense and should be adopted at the 2002 session.

Before major surgery on the Constitution of Virginia is pursued, legislators should try less drastic reforms. Virginia is hardly in desperate shape.

What galls the "good government" reformers is that Virginia is a conservative, low-tax state. Most Virginians don't believe every problem can be solved with more government spending and more laws.

McSweeney, who practices law in Richmond, is a former chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia. His column appears Sundays. Send e-mail to pmcsweeney@mcbump.com.